Kuria v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123997
| N.D. Ga. | 2010Background
- Kuria sues Palisades alleging FDCPA and GFBPA violations.
- Original complaint named Palisades Collection, LLC, not the proper defendant.
- Palisades purchased a Providian debt Palisades claimed Kuria owed; disputes as to validity.
- Palisades dismissed Clayton County state suit after lacking documentation substantiating the debt.
- Kuria filed this federal action November 24, 2009; later filed a second amended complaint with additional factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended complaint could be filed as a matter of course or required leave | Kuria argues Rule 15(a)(1) permits amendment as a matter of course. | Palisades argues no leave or consent was obtained for the second amendment. | Grant of nunc pro tunc leave; amendment permitted |
| Whether the amendment relates back to avoid statute of limitations | Amendment should relate back under Rule 15(c) Krupski principles. | Relating back not proper under prior Eleventh Circuit precedent. | Relation back allowed under Krupski; not time-barred |
| Whether Palisades qualifies as a 'debt collector' under FDCPA/GFBPA | As a third-party debt purchaser, Palisades can be liable as a debt collector. | As a creditor, Palisades should be exempt from FDCPA liability absent certain conditions. | Palisades may be liable as a debt collector where the debt was in default when purchased |
| Whether the second amended complaint pleads plausible FDCPA/GFBPA claims | Alleges pattern of abusive litigation and misrepresentations to collect falsely. | Filing a suit to collect a debt is not per se actionable; need proper factual support. | Second amended complaint states a plausible claim for FDCPA and GFBPA violations |
| Whether the FDCPA claim is time-barred absent relation back | Relation back salvages timing. | Statute of limitations bars the claim if relation back is improper. | Relation back satisfied under Krupski; not time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (distinguishes frivolous filing from bad-faith pattern; supports plausibility of claims)
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 130 S. Ct. 2485 (U.S. 2010) (relates back depends on knowledge that proper party would have been named but for error)
- Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes pattern of deceitful filings from mere lack of proof;)
- Deere v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 413 F. Supp. 2d 886 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (distinguishes mere lack of knowledge from true misrepresentation in pleadings)
- Schiavone v. Fortune, 316 F.3d 104 (9th Cir. 2003) (liberality of leave to amend; decide on merits when possible)
- Williams v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (reiterated pattern of litigation context in FDCPA claims)